Saturday, May 03, 2014

A bill that would enable professional sports franchises to compete for sales tax subsidies cleared a major hurdle Friday, winning overwhelming support in the Florida House.

The tax breaks would be available to professional football, basketball, hockey and soccer teams, as well as professional rodeos and NASCAR-sponsored events.

But baseball teams would have to stay on the bench — unless Major League Baseball changes its rules about Cuban baseball players.

Lawmakers added the stipulation in response to media reports that Cuban outfielder Yasiel Puig had been held hostage by human traffickers while trying to establish residency in Mexico in 2012.

Under Major League Baseball rules, players from Cuba must live in another country before they can become free agents. Cuban players who come directly to the United States are forced into the amateur draft, which limits their salaries.

“Major League Baseball [has] inadvertently created a market for human smuggling and the unequal treatment of Cuban baseball players,” said Rep. José Félix Díaz, R-Miami, who introduced the provision with Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fort Walton Beach. “We’re not going to give away our taxpayer dollars until this ill is corrected.”

In response, the MLB issued the following statement: “While the sponsors of the bill in Florida blame MLB policies for the role of human smugglers, they do not provide any support for their premise that Cuban players must rely on traffickers to defect to countries other than the U.S. such as Mexico or the Dominican Republic, but would not need the assistance of traffickers to reach U.S. soil.”

Reader Comments and Retorts

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

I'll bet anyone who wants to bet even odds, I get the field, you get Hillary. Up to a total of a grand.

She lost to the 2008 version of Eugene McCarthy (without the 20 years of Congressional experience) in the primaries. Even LBJ wouldn't have wound up actually losing, as Hillary did. Democratic primary voters didn't like her. Republicans affirmatively loathe her.

Assuming she declares and has no health issues that would force her to withdraw from the race, I'm down for the max. Where, when, and how do you want to post?

No assumptions allowed. She'll lie about health issues if necessary to save face.

The bet is she's elected president or she's not.

Pass. I'm betting on her against any Republican in the field. I'm not betting against a malignant tumor. Your original offer was followed by an analysis of her electoral weakness, not the weakness of her arteries, but perhaps I should have realized that her supposed lack of electability wasn't the basis of your bravado.

Pass. I'm betting on her against any Republican in the field. I'm not betting against a malignant tumor. Your original offer was followed by an analysis of her electoral weakness, not the weakness of her arteries, but perhaps I should have realized that her supposed lack of electability wasn't the basis of your bravado.

Oh, brother. A party nominee has dropped out of the presidential general for health reasons exactly, what? .... zero times ever?

So from this we can see that you think her odds of assuming office in January 2017 is less than 50/50.

Susan Rice did mention the video that Sunday. There is absolutely no evidence to suggest she was willfully lying when she did. She was relating the best information the CIA and WH had to give.

The bone of contention is that it wasn't "the best information" that caused the White House to insert the "blame the video" explanation for the Benghazi attack, it was political expediency. Seems like an investigation should be able to get to the bottom of that. Not sure what the WH & House Democrats are afraid of. Of course, if the WH had nothing to hide, why did they hide that e-mail for a year?

The bone of contention is that it wasn't "the best information" that caused the White House to insert the "blame the video" explanation for the Benghazi attack, it was political expediency. Seems like an investigation should be able to get to the bottom of that

.

Assuming for the sake of argument that it was not a case of "best information", it's not clear to me what the scandal is. I mean, every administration has a more or less loose acquaintance with strict accuracy. Using a knowingly false talking point after the fact doesn't have any impact on the deaths, nor on anything else I can see.

Oh, brother. A party nominee has dropped out of the presidential general for health reasons exactly, what? .... zero times ever?

So from this we can see that you think her odds of assuming office in January 2017 is less than 50/50.

I think that if Hillary's healthy enough to run and chooses to enter the primaries, her odds of winning the nomination and then beating any Republican in the general election are better than 50/50. Apparently you agree, or otherwise you'd bet against it.

But as a compromise offer, if you change your mind I'll declare you the winner and pay up if she withdraws from the race at any point after May 10, 2016, for any reason, either a bad Benghazi or a bad ticker. That'll still give you six months worth of Koch Brothers attack ads to induce a disabling ulcer or a nervous breakdown that will get you your money.

If you agree, I'll post my cash with JE (Jason Epstein) the Hillary fan, assuming he'll consent, and assuming he'll promise not to croak himself before then.

Oh, and as an added inducement, you also win if she's tried and convicted for perjury about anything you or Darrel Issa want, and is barred from running due to her felony conviction. That giddy thought should give you extra energy for your future crusades.

The bone of contention is that it wasn't "the best information" that caused the White House to insert the "blame the video" explanation for the Benghazi attack, it was political expediency. Seems like an investigation should be able to get to the bottom of that. Not sure what the WH & House Democrats are afraid of. Of course, if the WH had nothing to hide, why did they hide that e-mail for a year?

Uh, the CIA still says that the Benghazi riots were sparked by the Cairo riots earlier the same day. The Cairo riots were instigated by people with the silly "Innocence ..." video. It is actually the accepted version of events that the attacks were opportunistic.

I can't believe liberals post this with a straight face. The embassies in places like Paris and Oslo were found to have more and better security than Benghazi. That's not a budget problem; it's a leadership problem.

I should have been more clear--it didn't matter how much security was there, it probably wouldn't have made a difference (just more lives lost). The max number of guys would have been 6-8 for a security detail. But it was hypocritical to blame the lack of security when you voted to cut their security budget. Obvs a Marine battalion would have made a difference, but another couple guys would have just been more deaths.

But it was hypocritical to blame the lack of security when you voted to cut their security budget.

Utterly ludicrous. The State Dept. clearly had plenty of money to have a full security detail in places Paris and Oslo. The lack of security in Benghazi was a failure of leadership — a failure to conduct a common-sense prioritization when it came to the allocation of scarce resources, as anyone else with a budget is expected to do.

If a guy takes a $200 monthly pay cut and then continues paying for cable TV and stops buying food for his kids, and then the kids starve to death, you don't just shrug and say, "Well, the guy's boss never should have cut his pay." Give us a break with this nonsense.

Isn't it pretty widely accepted that the Benghazi site was primarily, perhaps even exclusively, a CIA site for gathering intelligence and moving weapons? And isn't it typical that CIA operatives (as opposed to analysts) typically have smallish security presence so as not to attract more attention?

And if you take it below the presidential level, there's Thomas Eagleton in 1972, and just a few months ago in Wyoming, there was Lon Chaney Liz Cheney, although in her case she was dead meat already.

And then there've been three first term presidents (Harrison, Taylor and Harding) who died of natural causes in office before they could seek re-election. All of them were younger than Hillary will be in 2016.

OTOH all of them could probably be disinterred today and still beat Ted Cruz.

Uh, the CIA still says that the Benghazi riots were sparked by the Cairo riots earlier the same day. The Cairo riots were instigated by people with the silly "Innocence ..." video. It is actually the accepted version of events that the attacks were opportunistic.

Are they still saying that, even after the Senate Intelligence Committee found (on a bipartisan basis!) that the intelligence community had relied on erroneous media reports in suggesting that? That'd be a bit much. Link goes to PDF of the Committee's report. [Not sure why a PDF alert is used @ BBTF, but be warned.] Why the Administration was so willing to cut & paste from erroneous media reports rather than credit our own folks who were on the ground also seems worthy of further inquiry. There were no demonstrations in Benghazi before the attacks, so I find it hard to believe the unsourced assertion in #1210 that the CIA is still blaming the video. But perhaps that carefully crafted language doesn't really intend to suggest that.

Regardless of the video/not video talking point, this entire debacle comes down to ermahgah, Susan Rice didn't have every fact straight a day after the event!! This is a snipe hunt and a massive waste of taxpayer money. All so the GOP can spin a talking point leading into 2016.

Paul Tsongas didn't withdraw from his presidential run because of his health - he didn't win enough delegates or raise enough money - so that doesn't change whatever conclusion one wants to draw about health affecting Presidential candidates.

Hillary Clinton's State Dept. allowed a U.S. ambassador to be used as "cover" for a poorly secured CIA mission in a violent, unstable area? Sounds like Hillary was an even worse secretary of state than previously thought.

There were no demonstrations in Benghazi before the attacks, so I find it hard to believe the unsourced assertion in #1210 that the CIA is still blaming the video. But perhaps that carefully crafted language doesn't really intend to suggest that.

The leader of Benghazi’s most overtly anti-Western militia, Ansar al-Shariah, boasted a few months before the attack that his fighters could “flatten” the American Mission. Surveillance of the American compound appears to have been underway at least 12 hours before the assault started.

The violence, though, also had spontaneous elements. Anger at the video motivated the initial attack. Dozens of people joined in, some of them provoked by the video and others responding to fast-spreading false rumors that guards inside the American compound had shot Libyan protesters. Looters and arsonists, without any sign of a plan, were the ones who ravaged the compound after the initial attack, according to more than a dozen Libyan witnesses as well as many American officials who have viewed the footage from security cameras.

....There is no doubt that anger over the video motivated many attackers. A Libyan journalist working for The New York Times was blocked from entering by the sentries outside, and he learned of the film from the fighters who stopped him. Other Libyan witnesses, too, said they received lectures from the attackers about the evil of the film and the virtue of defending the prophet.

Blaming Rice for not having all the facts on the day after the attacks was the height of silliness.

(PS: I don't know why people get upset about PDFs on this site either. It's bizarre. I agree completely with you there.)

Blaming Rice for not having all the facts on the day after the attacks was the height of silliness.

No, the height of silliness is excusing the Obama administration's deliberate attempt to mislead people. If the Obama administration didn't have all the facts, they should have sent Susan Rice out to say that, rather than send her around to blame that dumb YouTube video.

Utterly ludicrous. The State Dept. clearly had plenty of money to have a full security detail in places Paris and Oslo. The lack of security in Benghazi was a failure of leadership — a failure to conduct a common-sense prioritization when it came to the allocation of scarce resources, as anyone else with a budget is expected to do.

If a guy takes a $200 monthly pay cut and then continues paying for cable TV and stops buying food for his kids, and then the kids starve to death, you don't just shrug and say, "Well, the guy's boss never should have cut his pay." Give us a break with this nonsense.

This is a weak attempt at buck-passing. If Congress tells the State Department that embassy security isn't a problem, then it can't turn around and say hey, you should have ignored what we said and taken embassy security at Benghazi more seriously.

Stevens chose his job. He chose to be a hands on, with the people ambassador. He certainly knew the CIA was operating out of his embassy. He died in the line of his duty. That you want to turn his death into a gotcha moment for political propaganda speaks depths about your personal lack of any sort of basic human ethic.

This is a weak attempt at buck-passing. If Congress tells the State Department that embassy security isn't a problem, then it can't turn around and say hey, you should have ignored what we said and taken embassy security at Benghazi more seriously.

LOL. Did you even read the comment you quoted? (If so, do you reject the idea of prioritizing expenditures?)

***

Stevens chose his job. He chose to be a hands on, with the people ambassador. He certainly knew the CIA was operating out of his embassy. He died in the line of his duty. That you want to turn his death into a gotcha moment for political propaganda speaks depths about your personal lack of any sort of basic human ethic.

Sammy, you should leave the fake moral outrage to the professionals. You look silly.

***

Natural social conservatives. This big/large government yapping from anyone is bullshit. Liberal and conservatives want the government to do what they want it to do, size be damned.

Non-responsive. Barack Obama has the most morally repugnant views on abortion of any major-party presidential candidate in U.S. history (and maybe any candidate, period), and yet those "social conservative" Latinos went for Obama both times by huge margins.

If you don't listen, everything is non-responsive. Maybe you're right, seemed like a good idea to me to go after immigrants who seem socially conservative. Give up on the Latino vote, see if anyone cares.

If you don't listen, everything is non-responsive. Maybe you're right, seemed like a good idea to me to go after immigrants who seem socially conservative. Give up on the Latino vote, see if anyone cares.

Now you're just being petulant.

Latinos talk a big game when it comes to social conservatism but they don't vote based on it.

Maybe you're right, seemed like a good idea to me to go after immigrants who seem socially conservative.

Well, it might help the cause a little if you're not also trying to kick their relatives and friends out of the country, but of course no true Latino conservative would ever care about a little thing like that.

Barack Obama has the most morally repugnant views on abortion of any major-party presidential candidate in U.S. history (and maybe any candidate, period),

He must be incensed that abortions have dropped so significantly under his presidency! to the lowest rate since 1973!

Funny, I always figured the pro-life crowd would focus for worst ever on the person who signed a bill that led to roughly one million additional abortions in a period when total restrictions were legal, but apparently people on the right are bigger fans of therapeutic abortion laws than I would have guessed.

Well, it might help the cause a little if you're not also trying to kick their relatives and friends out of the country, but of course no true Latino conservative would ever care about a little thing like that.

Indeed, they wouldn't (and, per various polls, don't). Conservatives believe in the rule of law. The problem for the GOP is that Latinos tend not to be conservatives.

***

He must be incensed that abortions have dropped so significantly under his presidency! to the lowest rate since 1973!

Well, it might help the cause a little if you're not also trying to kick their relatives and friends out of the country, but of course no true Latino conservative would ever care about a little thing like that.

Indeed, they wouldn't (and, per various polls, don't).

I'd love to see those polls that report that self-identified Latino conservatives wouldn't mind seeing their friends or relatives deported.

Conservatives believe in the rule of law. The problem for the GOP is that Latinos tend not to be conservatives.

So if the feds deport your cousin, you can't be a "conservative" unless you cheer them on, and maybe even tell them where he's living.

That's certainly a humane point of view. Does this also apply to other laws like tax evasion and pot smoking? Is ratting out relatives and friends the new litmus test for true conservatism?

Wait, didn't we just have pages on this thread that conservatives respect action, laws be damned? And thus cheered Reagan for flagrantly violating the law by trading with an avowed US enemy in pursuit of his greater good?

But as a compromise offer, if you change your mind I'll declare you the winner and pay up if she withdraws from the race at any point after May 10, 2016, for any reason, either a bad Benghazi or a bad ticker. That'll still give you six months worth of Koch Brothers attack ads to induce a disabling ulcer or a nervous breakdown that will get you your money.

Pass. If she's getting beat in the Dem primaries and it's hopeless, there's a very good chance she'll phony up a health excuse for getting out.

But as a compromise offer, if you change your mind I'll declare you the winner and pay up if she withdraws from the race at any point after May 10, 2016, for any reason, either a bad Benghazi or a bad ticker. That'll still give you six months worth of Koch Brothers attack ads to induce a disabling ulcer or a nervous breakdown that will get you your money.

Pass. If she's getting beat in the Dem primaries and it's hopeless, there's a very good chance she'll phony up a health excuse for getting out.

Tell you what: If (1) she enters the race and (2) then pulls out for any reason once the New Hampshire returns are in---regardless of the delegate count at the time---without having suffered a certified stroke, heart attack, malignant tumor or nervous breakdown, you win.

And to show you what a good guy I am, I'll even say that you win if she pulls out at any point after Super Tuesday while trailing in the delegate count, no matter what her reason, no matter if she's in a coma and Bill is wanting to pull the plug.

Lots of people are angry about FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler's Internet "fast lane" proposal that would let Internet service providers charge Web services for priority access to consumers. But one Web hosting service called NeoCities isn't just writing letters to the FCC. Instead, the company found the FCC's internal IP address range and throttled all connections to 28.8Kbps speeds.

The FBI is investigating last month’s standoff between supporters of anti-government rancher Cliven Bundy and employees of the Bureau of Land Management, according to a report from the Las Vegas CBS affiliate KLAS.

The investigation is reportedly related to the April standoff between Bundy and a heavily armed ad-hoc militia and agents from the Bureau of Land Management. Bundy, who owes more than $1 million in grazing fees and penalties after using government land to feed his cattle, refuses to accept the authority of the federal government. He and his approximately 400 supporters stopped BLM officials from taking Bundy’s cattle in response to his delinquency.

It doesn't detract from your overall point, but that link is a year and a half old, and McConnell's not the governor of Virginia any more. And the number of Republican-controlled states that haven't fully implemented Obamacare and allowed for Medicaid expansion is a lot longer than five.

Pass. I'm betting on her against any Republican in the field. I'm not betting against a malignant tumor. Your original offer was followed by an analysis of her electoral weakness, not the weakness of her arteries, but perhaps I should have realized that her supposed lack of electability wasn't the basis of your bravado.

Please, Andy. You have to realize that a face-saving withdrawal by Hillary simply should cause you to lose the bet.

SBB had the only fair rules: an election night victory by Hillary on Tuesday, November 8, 2016 and you win the bet. Any other outcome and you lose.

I'm sure SBB would readily concede that if Hillary wins the election but drops dead before taking office, you still win the bet.

Please, Andy. You have to realize that a face-saving withdrawal by Hillary simply should cause you to lose the bet.

SBB had the only fair rules: an election night victory by Hillary on Tuesday, November 8, 2016 and you win the bet. Any other outcome and you lose.

I'm sure SBB would readily concede that if Hillary wins the election but drops dead before taking office, you still win the bet.

Ray, do you EVER read anything but what you think advances your argument?

Perhaps you missed my response to that objection, and perhaps you'd now care to respond to it.

1249. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: May 10, 2014 at 11:12 PM (#4704292)
Tell you what: If (1) she enters the race and (2) then pulls out for any reason once the New Hampshire returns are in---regardless of the delegate count at the time---without having suffered a certified stroke, heart attack, malignant tumor or nervous breakdown, you win.

And to show you what a good guy I am, I'll even say that you win if she pulls out at any point after Super Tuesday while trailing in the delegate count, no matter what her reason, no matter if she's in a coma and Bill is wanting to pull the plug.

And BTW the offer's open to you or anyone else as well as to Sugar Bear. Post up to a grand at even odds.

It's almost as if they're prosecuting any narrative to undermine a potential Clinton campaign, Morty.

Yeah, I think it's been in the making for a long time. And it's going to be a long drawn out concerted campaign. It has become apparent that like with the first Clinton a lot of money will be spent on the black arts of shenanigan politics to undermine campaigns and elections. I mean, when you got 12 million dollars to throw away on yet another Lewinski coming out, and things like this are being aired already, it's going to be a study in throw it all at the wall and hopefully something will stick.

Benghazi is about undermining Obama and Clinton's legitimacy. This Nigerian girls silliness is too. It's all about how everything would be better if we'd just elect a conservative big swinging dick to put the world back in line.

And BTW the offer's open to you or anyone else as well as to Sugar Bear. Post up to a grand at even odds.

I'll bet you a grand under the only fair rules there are: an election night victory by Hillary on Tuesday, November 8, 2016 and you win the bet; any other outcome and you lose.

So if she never runs, or enters and withdraws, or enters and pulls out citing "health reasons" (real or Memorex), or enters and loses the nomination, or wins the nomination and loses the election, I win. After all, my bet is that she is unelectable. And so the only way I lose that bet is if she... stay with me... gets elected. This isn't hard. If she withdraws legitimately for health reasons then as you say that doesn't necessarily mean that she was unelectable, but the only way we KNOW that I was wrong about her being unelectable is for her to... be elected. And so that's what the bet should be.

This is an objective standard, that doesn't depend on an umpire's ruling of whether she withdrew for "health reasons" or just to save face.

No, I am not betting under your "certified nervous breakdown" rules. The only fair bet is an objective one, where there is no room for me to win the bet yet "lose" because she saved face and pulled out. If you're so confident she's electable, and so confident I'm wrong, you should be leaping at the chance to put your money where your mouth is. It's no shock to me that you're not.

(And to be clear: my above offer to bet a grand is made specifically to Andy and no one else. I'm not making an unlimited number of offers here.)

So if she never runs... I win. After all, my bet is that she is unelectable.

Logic fail. If she decides not to run because she is too damned tired to be president or doesn't want the job for any other number of myriad reasons, this does not prove she's unelectable, it proves she was not in a position to be elected. You're a lawyer?

Aside from the universal mistrust engendered by what fiendish manipulators of language y'all are :) the basic bet on Clinton seems both good and bad to me. She's the presumptive 2016 Democratic nominee and would be favored against any known Republican. That's worth an even-money bet. But she'll be 69 years old on election day and last time I saw her on the cover of the National Enquirer she looked awful. So I don't like the bet, even if I bet on individuals with less than four legs. That's probably why the bet can't be agreeably formulated.

By analogy, Adrian Beltre is 35, led the league in hits last year, and has 2,447 this morning. He figures to have a better than even chance to reach 3,000. But he also has this tendency to have a hamstring go out on him for 3 or 4 weeks every year, and he doesn't figure to get healthier and healthier in the years ahead, so I probably wouldn't bet on him either.

Logic fail. If she decides not to run because she is too damned tired to be president or doesn't want the job for any other number of myriad reasons, this does not prove she's unelectable, it proves she was not in a position to be elected.

My bet is that Hillary is unelectable. The only way to prove I am wrong is for her to win the election. We're not going to the scorecards. This isn't figure skating.

Andy can put up or he can shut up. The comical thing is that he's chosen the latter without actually shutting up.

Futures bets tend to be suckers bets. Most of the Future Pool entrants don't even make it to the starting gate; and those few that do tend to go to post on race day with odds at least as good as those offered in the Futures wager.

Can't imagine why anyone would take even money on any POTUS candidate now when you'll be able to get those same approximate odds two years from now on that same candidate. To even get the nominees of the two major parties correct at this stage of the game is much more a matter of luck than skill (anyone else here remember how the Republican Party was all set to run against Mario Cuomo in 1992?).

This latest episode should make it perfectly clear to Andy why companies put fine print in their service and customer contracts.

I know the two of you don't really care to back up your repeated claims that Hillary is "unelectable"** with actual money, so I can't really blame you for trying to have it both ways.

But let's try it one more time.

If Hillary simply enters the race, and at any point thereafter withdraws while she trails in either the delegate count (during the primaries) or in the RCP average against ANY announced Republican candidate, at ANY point once she's declared her candidacy---you win.

Repeat: If she declares her candidacy and quits the race at ANY subsequent point when she's behind---YOU WIN.

You'd not only get to mock her reasons, but you'd win your bet. But if you're still scared to put up, I understand fully.

The only "out" that leaves her is that she sees the writing on the wall while she's ahead and invents a phony health reason for withdrawing. But unless you think she's going to quit while she's ahead, that covers all your professed objections.

**"Unelectable" doesn't usually mean "not choosing to run while you're ahead in every poll".

------------------------------

Please. After all she's been through to get to this point? No politician means it when one says one is quitting "to spend more time with my family."

And if she enters and then quits while using that line, you not only win, but I'll meet the three of you (since BobM seems to have an itchy betting finger) at a Chik-Fil-A to hand you your cash in person. Since such a moment would probably be the highlight of your lives, I don't see how you could possibly pass up such a golden opportunity.

Unless, of course, you're just blowing it through your butts, as usual.

Yeah given good health I would totally be on that bet. But the actuarial tables need to be factored in, and that is the only thing that gives me pause. Still I am super tempted to get in for a hundred or two, if only because then when I win and don't get paid I get to talk about it forever.

Very different in method, though. Douthat seems to take several disconnected facts and opinions and bind them into a really broad brush to tar colleges with. I can't even get a handle on it to critique what he's saying precisely. Even that "VOX" explain-it-all that he links to shows more nuance and qualification.

The piece by Chugh et al. is based on a single, modest, focused, easy-to-understand study, and I don't think the authors oversell it. Assuming that their finding meets statistical tests of plausibility, it indeed offers something to think about. The conclusion is not (at all!) that "professors, especially in business, are racist ###hats" but, in practical terms, that everyone might benefit from thinking more consciously about their prejudices.

My bet is that Hillary is unelectable. The only way to prove I am wrong is for her to win the election.

So the way to win your objective bet is to prove a negative. And this you find reasonable.

And, your answer is non-responsive to the logic gap in your statement that deciding not to run proves unelectability. It simply does not prove that, at all. I mean, you think it does? Can you explain that?

Please. After all she's been through to get to this point? No politician means it when one says one is quitting "to spend more time with my family."

And if she enters and then quits while using that line, you not only win, but I'll meet the three of you (since BobM seems to have an itchy betting finger) at a Chik-Fil-A to hand you your cash in person.

My bet is different. I say she's running until she effectively loses the nomination or through Election Day, short of an incapacitating stroke or death. There is no way she fails to run to spend more time with Bill, Chelsea or her prospective grandchild.

Very different in method, though. Douthat seems to take several disconnected facts and opinions and bind them into a really broad brush to tar colleges with. I can't even get a handle on it to critique what he's saying precisely. Even that "VOX" explain-it-all that he links to shows more nuance and qualification.

The piece by Chugh et al. is based on a single, modest, focused, easy-to-understand study, and I don't think the authors oversell it. Assuming that their finding meets statistical tests of plausibility, it indeed offers something to think about. The conclusion is not (at all!) that "professors, especially in business, are racist ###hats" but, in practical terms, that everyone might benefit from thinking more consciously about their prejudices.

Glad to see that someone actually clicks on links and reads them.

I think the Douthat piece was simply pointing out that colleges' #1 role these days seems to be little more than obsessive branding and spin control, which makes sense from a business POV but leaves a lot of moral issues awaiting to see which way the current wind is blowing. You'll note that Douthat wasn't endorsing witch hunts against the merely accused, but the mixed signals that colleges are sending out about sex these days are trying to please everyone without really getting to the bottom of the issue, which is the underlying incompatibility of many of those signals.

And the professors' article on prejudice among their own group was triply revealing: It shows rather conclusively the aspects of racism that show up among all groups when their guards are down; It shows how that prejudice continues to weigh most heavily upon African Americans; and yet it also shows that African Americans themselves often aren't exempt from the same crude stereotypecasting. As I said, it's not likely to please anyone who tries to see race in simplistic terms.

My bet is that Hillary is unelectable. The only way to prove I am wrong is for her to win the election. We're not going to the scorecards. This isn't figure skating.

Andy can put up or he can shut up. The comical thing is that he's chosen the latter without actually shutting up.

The bet was Hillary vs. the field even odds. Not Hillary vs the field even odds, but with the caveat that Hillary gets to drop out or not run. The latter might be an interesting bet, but it wasn't the one I proposed.

Andy, we all remember how she tried to cheat and change the rules in 2008 when she fell behind, so your "if she's ahead" and drops out construction also doesn't work (plus it wasn't the bet I proposed).

All this shows that the bravado around here is phony, and no one is even willing to take a 50-50 call that she's elected president. All this when people are talking like she's 1 to 5 or something like that.

My bet is different. I say she's running until she effectively loses the nomination or through Election Day, short of an incapacitating stroke or death. There is no way she fails to run to spend more time with Bill, Chelsea or her prospective grandchild.

I'm a bit confused about what all that means, but if you read what I wrote in 1275 and 1280 and want to take me up on it, you're on for up to a grand. Once she formally declares her candidacy, she can't withdraw for any reason if she's behind in the RCP average, and if she does so, you automatically win the bet.

And I'll even throw in yet one more bone to any of you three: If she never enters the race at all, and at the time of her announced NON-candidacy she's trailing in the RCP average to any other candidate, you win at that point as well. That gives you a whole year or more's worth of Monica revelations and/or Benghazi scandals to send her poll numbers plummeting and drive her out of the race.

The bet was Hillary vs. the field even odds. Not Hillary vs the field even odds, but with the caveat that Hillary gets to drop out or not run. The latter might be an interesting bet, but it wasn't the one I proposed.

That's fine, and no hard feelings, and I'll get back to you if and when she declares, to see if you still think she's "unelectable."

Andy, we all remember how she tried to cheat and change the rules in 2008 when she fell behind, so your "if she's ahead" and drops out construction also doesn't work (plus it wasn't the bet I proposed).

But I've already said that you win the bet if she's behind in the RCP average when she withdraws.

All this shows that the bravado around here is phony, and no one is even willing to take a 50-50 call that she's elected president. All this when people are talking like she's 1 to 5 or something like that.

Don't worry, once she declares you'll know where to find me, and I'll know where to find you.

All this shows that the bravado around here is phony, and no one is even willing to take a 50-50 call that she's elected president. All this when people are talking like she's 1 to 5 or something like that.

And talking that conservatives are so focused on destroying her as a viable candidate that they're harping on Benghazi -- which may well be the case but all it shows is that the liberals here DO think she is going to run. So this "she gets to drop out" business just shows that they're all talk.

And talking that conservatives are so focused on destroying her as a viable candidate that they're harping on Benghazi -- which may well be the case but all it shows is that the liberals here DO think she is going to run. So this "she gets to drop out" business just shows that they're all talk.

I don't actually think she's going to run. I've been the most vocal lib on this issue, I think.

Ray, I have made the most points about the obvious fox agitation against HRC. I also assume she's the dem nominee until shown otherwise. And barring some new development in the interim, she is the clear favorite to win in 2016.

The only way to prove that she's electable is for her to be elected, which is all I'm interested in betting on.

More failures of words and concepts. Someone is unelectable until they win, then they are electable. By this logic, none of the current prospective Presidential candidates on either side is electable. Stellar definition.

If you want to bet she's going to lose, make that bet. Your use of "unelectable" and its opposite in this context for this bet is illogical.

mostly, but the William Hill CEO said the other day that one of the owners of Kentucky Derby winner California Chrome went to one of their futures sites in Nevada and landed 200-to-1 odds. apparently the payoff was - considerable.

I don't think Hillary will seek the nomination. If she does run, I don't think she'll be nominated. If she wins the nomination, I don't think she'll win the presidency.

1. Hillary will be quite old for a presidential cycle. She will be 69 at the time of the election. That's extremely old for a Democrat, or a woman. It's a relatively grueling process, and for what? To pick another series of endless fights with Republicans? To have the enviro/populist left ##### about how she's the same as a R? I think at some point in time, Hillary will have to ask herself, why do I want to become president? She has no legislative agenda, no issues that she owns any more. Healthcare was her baby, and PPACA is pretty much what she wanted. Also, I think that if she really wanted to be POTUS above all else, she would have taken VP when it was allegedly offered to her.
2. If she seeks the nom, I don't think she gets it. She'll be old for a nom in the modern era. She'll be ANCIENT for a D nominee. She'll be the oldest potential president that the Democrats have offered up since ... FDR? The oldest first-time nominee in even longer. I think that will really hurt her in the primary, and the dynasty sense is really hard to avoid. She STILL has the Iraq baggage. In her favor is the fact that all other potential nominees right now look absolutely dreadful. This is the weakest link in my case.
3. If she gets the nom, I don't think she wins. It's really hard to win three straight presidential elections. If the trend of 2% growth continues, it's in that area where campaigns can make a difference, and she surrounds herself with too many Clinton apparatchiks. I think the "time for a change" rhetoric will resonate especially loudly when faced with the choice of another Clinton.

I think the strongest case is for 1, and the weakest is for 2. I'm basically betting on some deus ex machina politician rising in the D Primary for 2 (I have a low opinion of Schweitzer, O'Malley and all the other presumptive noms. I thought it was going to be Andrew Cuomo a year ago, but now that looks less likely. He's the only guy I would say has a prayer.) If I were being totally honest, I would say that she's no better than a tossup on 3. I don't think she gets there, though.